Now Playing: ‘Gravity’ Rises to the Top

You’re bound to read all sorts of hyperbolic love for Alfonso Cuarón’s ‘Gravity’. Just so you know, it’s all true.

While fixing the Hubble telescope, Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) are greeted with orbiting debris. Going into specifics about the debris isn’t necessary. All we know is that, after a gorgeously shot opening in which Cuarón swoops, swirls and twists his camera into magnificent tracking shots rivaling the greatness of his ‘Children of Men‘, holy hell rains down on the space shuttle. The debris silently rips apart the shuttle in seconds. This is one of the most intense and creative action scenes I’ve seen in a long time. (Side note: If ‘Gravity’ isn’t already a guaranteed winner for the visual effects Oscar, then I don’t know what would be.)

From that moment on, Cuarón builds a tension-filled sci-fi story that captures the immensity of space and how, at the same time, it can be utterly claustrophobic. The helplessness you feel as Stone flips end over end, tumbling into the void without any friction to stop her, is unlike any other cinematic experience. It’s not long into the film when you forget that you’re just watching a movie. Instead, you experience all the fear and imminent dread that Dr. Stone feels in this insanely dangerous environment.

But the screenplay isn’t all about action. It gives us time to understand Dr. Stone’s back story, without any need for flashbacks. Cuarón always keeps you in the moment, as if you’re watching the events in real-time.

Amid such intense, unrelenting destruction, Cuarón still provides moments to rest. At these breaks in the action, the entirety of the audience at the screening I attended would let out a collective sigh. That wasn’t because they knew the character was out of trouble, but because they hadn’t breathed until then. My hand turned a strange shade of purple from clutching my wife. Personally, ‘Gravity’ scared the pants off of me. I’ll admit to having a completely illogical yet very real fear of gravity suddenly shutting off, causing everyone in the theater to float up and away. My fear, coupled with Cuarón’s expertly crafted action sequences, provided me with the scariest moviegoing event I’ve had in a very long time.

Cuarón is quite a visionary, and his talent is on full display here. Not only will you not see a more intense movie this year, you most likely won’t see one as beautiful either. This is one of those movies where you’ll sit there already planning to watch the making-of features when the Blu-ray comes out, because you can’t figure out how everything looks so authentic. The film’s greatest achievement, besides its death-defying action, is the fact that nothing looks computer generated. You can’t point to one single aspect of the movie and say, “Yup, that’s green screen.” It looks utterly amazing from start to finish. Cuarón understands that cinema can still be outrageously beautiful. His amazing tracking shots in ‘Gravity’ are a testament to his craft.

Just one more thing: See ‘Gravity’ on the biggest screen possible. This is an experience that you won’t soon forget.

About Aaron Peck

Aaron Peck is a seasoned film critic. He's spent his days reviewing Blu-rays for High-Def Digest, and writing film reviews and feature articles for Film.com. He's also a member of the Utah Film Critics Association.

Deaditelord

I would love to see Gravity in an IMAX theater, but the closest one to where I live in Iowa is in Davenport which would be a 3+ hour drive. I’ll have to settle for the Marcus theater Ultrascreen which is supposed to be 70 feet wide and 3 stories tall.

Ted S.

Actually the film will only be shown at digital aka fake IMAX theaters, my local true IMAX theater is not showing it. I asked them why and they told me Warner Bros. isn’t producing any 70mm prints for the true IMAX theaters. Which is a real bummer.

I feel its the only way to see this movie. The 3D is perfection and enhances the film. Seeing Sandra Bullock floating into space and actually getting further and further from you is just insane. You want to grab her and pull her back to safety. Also, the space station and satellites with Earth in the background is stunning. Like your up there looking through a window.

Freakyguy6

The movie was shot in 2D and converted. Although Cuaron planned for 3D all along, there were technical reasons why 3D cameras weren’t appropriate for the shoot.

I don’t believe there are any aspect ratio shifts, but I’ll let someone who’s seen it in IMAX field that one. None of the movie was actually shot on IMAX film. According to IMDb, the movie was shot with the Arri Alexa, which is a 2k digital camera.

Ted S.

No aspect ratio changes, I saw it a the digital IMAX theater last night and it was shown in constant 2.39:1 widescreen, so you’ll see black bar on top and bottom of the screen if you see it at the IMAX theater.

Freakyguy6

William Henley

Yes, but it seemed to add little to the experience. There were a couple of sound effects here and there that were placed outside of the regular 5.1 sound field, but they were really few, and didn’t seem to add much to the experience.

Drew

Aaron, you’re still in Utah? I see you say that you see films in “true IMAX” from time to time, but I remember a discussion with Josh and Luke, where they confirmed that there is no true IMAX in Utah. Plus, nobody has ever seen an IMAX 3D film in true IMAX. IMAX 3D films are projected digitally. True IMAX and IMAX 3D are two totally separate concepts. It’s not possible to see a 3D movie in true IMAX. Apparently, Utah used to have a true IMAX, but like so many others, nationwide, the theater opted to get rid of it, in order to convert to digital/3D and bring in the extra money that IMAX 3D generates. You can discuss this more, with Luke.

William Henley

This is true, but I think with the exception of a few amusement park rides, no one is using this format anymore. Two 15/70 film projectors would be huge, the film would have to be synched up precisely, and if a film breaks and has to be split, suddenly one of your strips is out of sync by a frame or two.

In my area, none of the true Imax theaters show 3D. There is one that has both film and Digital in the same auditorium, and it looks like the digital is used for 3D. NONE of the true-IMAX theaters I have been to have two film projectors.

I am willing to bet that any FEATURE-length 3D Imax film you have seen is being projected digitally.

You’re right, Drew. The Jordan Commons IMAX theater in Sandy, Utah scrapped their print projector for digital projectors. With a plethora of lie-max screens around the area now, I still prefer to hit up Jordan Commons just because it has the classic steep seating and massive screen that’s several stories high. Jordan Commons is still my preferred theater in Utah.

I expected it to make people sick, but it haven’t heard of that once. If anything is nauseating, it’s just the first 20 minutes or so. (But wait until you hear stories of people walking out of Captain Phillips. Saw it last night and several people that I know got sea sick from it!)

William Henley

There were a few people sick. My buddy and I both were. For the most part, that passed once they got to the space station. Sure glad I wasn’t watching it in 3D or I am sure I would have been puking for sure. But I am prone to motion sickness anyways.

We were debating on Cap’n Phillips, but we were already hearing this report. I guess we will pass on that one. I got a busy weekend anyways. Our church is hosting a large conference starting Sunday, and its all hands on deck pretty much as far as volunteers are concerned, and as I have another friend in town until this Saturday, just not going to have time to get to the movies this weekend.

There is another movie I am REALLY looking forward to opening next weekend, but it is only playing in two cities in the state – both citeis are four hours away. Here’s to hoping for a wide-spread release of Escape From Tomorrow.!

Pedram

I’ve never felt sick watching a 3D movie in the theatre, but I will say this. When I first saw it, it was on opening weekend and we had really crappy seats in the front left corner. Looking at a huge (AVX) screen from that angle, I actually started to feel sick and left half way through. A few days later, I saw it again but this time sitting in the middle, and I felt totally fine.

William Henley

Going to try posting this in two comments – wordpress threw out my first comment for having too many links.

Ugh, why do I have to be the mean, nasty person to come in here.

I am not going to say this movie sucked – it didn’t. This movie had a lot of good things going for it – You had a great leading actress who totally sold the role, you had great directing, camera shots, beautiful photography, and great visual and sound effects.

The science of the thing, however, was hokey. Yeah, I get that its a movie, but it is based on real stuff. I leaned over to my buddy in the first 5 minutes of the movie, and we agreed that this scenario couldn’t possibly happen.

The issue – The Hubble Space Telescope is NOT even in remotely the same orbital height as the International Space Station. HST orbits at a height of 353 miles (source: http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/quick_facts.php). The ISS orbits at an altitude of 205-255 miles. That is a minimal of a 100 mile difference just in HEIGHT. You are not, with a jet pack, going to be able to get from Hubble to the ISS (well, maybe you could – an object in motion stays in motion, but as it takes 2 days for the shuttle to reach the ISS, and at least three to reach Hubble…) Even if the altitude was closer, well…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHrPdqjw_5s

Okay, enough science talk. Let’s talk about other issues with the movie.

2) I got motion sick. The camera spins out of control for quite a while in the begining of the movie – not a few seconds, but much much longer. While this makes that portion realistic, I was just wanting a puke bag.

3) The movie’s use of Atmos was really disappointing. The sound design of the movie just didn’t really lend itself well to that many speakers. I felt that I could have gotten the same experience watching the movie in 5.1

More science stuff:

4) There was a fire on the ISS? It was a different module, and you are the only person on board – just close the hatch, and maybe depressurize the area. You could have at least just closed the hatch between the modules

5) The Shenzhou just happened to be at the right degree of entry after the station burned up in the atmosphere to survive reentry? The Shenzhou is capable of automatic flight, but the movie made it appear that she stayed on the same path that the station was already heading. It looked like the only thing she did was disengage from the station and deploy the shoot.

6) How freakin big was this satelite (or rather satelites) if the debris were big enough to take out the shuttle, ISS and Chinese Station? Can debris do that? Yes, there is a danger, but really? And would Russia really be stupid enough to blow up a satelite that was that close in orbit to the ISS? They got men and equipment up there too! What would have made this MUCH more believable is if they had entered a undocumented meteor shower or something (from the movie trailers,t hat was actually what I had assumed had happened).

—————-

Yes, there were great things and not so great things about this movie. It pretty much looks like Alfonso was given a crap script, and decided that he was going to do magic with it anyways. The result is an entertaining and visual thrill ride if you can shut your brain off for an hour and a half.

Hi William. Sounds like you just didn’t get into this one. And that’s totally cool. We’re not all going to like every big hit movie (or every movie a lot of people say is good or great or important). Wanted to post a few points of clarification / discussion points for you and others reacting to the film above.

1. The film’s premise was inspired by The Kessler Syndrome (check out the Wiki), which fortunately is not a real thing. To your question about how big the satellite was that caused this, it wasn’t just one satellite that is in pieces, but one satellite that crashed into another and into another and into another — so much so the film points out that the US is losing most of their communication satellites (thus, no Houston). There was also a line of dialog about why the Russians were purposefully removing a satellite (b/c it was possibly for spying). You don’t have to like these answers, but the movie gave them.

2. For the rest of your science queries, here’s a quote from top physicist Sean Carrol: “But plausibility should never be the criterion for judging a science-fiction/fantasy scenario; sometimes you just have to bend the rules of the real world to get the required dramatic effects.”

And here’s an article, recommended by Sean, about what we can expect for sci-fi like this in terms of absolute reality v. dramatic needs (say the ability to get to both the ISS and the Chinese station):

4. Re: The Shenzhou, there is a shot of the craft stops tumbling and self-rights itself as it hits the upper atmosphere. I didn’t think much about it, but I would think these crafts are designed to do that.

5. In terms of the “script being crap”, that’s also fair for you to think. Cuaron did co-write this, as he often does, and FYI rarely does any director have zero say in story — they often have final say. So there’s no such thing in Hollywood as ‘crap script the director saved’ b/c the process of shooting and editing is essentially “re-writing”.

Here’s another essay you might want to consider (not that it will change your mind — just to give you another opinion as to why GRAVITY is exactly what it needs and wants to be):

6. I personally disagree with you on ATMOS. You’re unlikely to see this movie again theatrically (i get it), but there will be huge difference in a 5.1 cinema auditorium. We’ll take the upgrades to full range speakers / rear subs out of the equation, but 5.1 in large cinemas just can’t compete (unless it’s the IMAX format which also has stereo rear, but 5 front channels). Not when half of the auditorium’s rear speakers (lets say 10-15 each) are all sending out the same signal. In Atmos, individual objects (like voices) go to individual speakers, so Clooney’s voice is so, so specifically placed. Trust me, I’ve heard Dolby do demonstrations where they do multiple conversations in traditional surround sound, and it’s so much more muddy that what Gravity’s multiple voices were able to do. It’s not the loudest soundtrack, or most aggressive, but it’s among the most precise I’ve ever heard. And a real achievement in sound — this one is taking home a lot of technical Oscars, sound included.

7. re: the fire. She did close a hatch… when she got to the escape pod, and it kept her mostly safe. The filmmakers didn’t establish that she could control the entire ISS (cut off portions) or had the training to do such a thing.

Cheers.

William Henley

There is a difference between Sci-Fi-Fantasy (ie Star Wars, Avatar), Sci-Fi-Plaussible Fantasy (ie Star Trek / Alien / Super8), and Sci-Fi-Based-on-Science-Fact (ie 2001, 2010, SpaceCamp, Gravity). The closer to reality that you base your story in, the closer that you have to fact check – otherwise you risk detaching your audience for believability issues (also, in Sci-Fi Universes such as Star Wars and Star Trek, you need to make sure that your stories try to stay consistent with each other and abide by the rules of the universe that you have already created).

As for Dolby Atmos – I have seen a few other movies that make great use of this technology. Gravity made poor use. There were a couple of effects that made good use of the expanded sound field, but I could probably count those effects on one hand. Maybe I worded my argument wrong – I could tell that it was in Atmos, but it wasn’t that much better than it could have been in 5.1 – the difference wasn’t as amazing as other movies I have seen in 5.1.

I still think it was a fun movie, and I did enjoy it. I just think a little tweaking would have added a lot to the believability. For example – minor adjustments:
1) have them repairing a random satelite instead of the HST.
2) meteor shower instead of blowing up a satelite
3) put a bit more space between the ISS and the Chinese space station.
4)have sandra’s character have a bit more control over the reentry procedure.

You could have had exactly the same story, and had move believability.

Fair enough, sir. In a related note, I saw this post on scientist/futurist David Brin’s Facebook page, and I thought you would enjoy his reaction:

{begin quote}

Saw Gravity today. Enjoyed it immensely. Fantastic to watch, tensely edited. Bullock took us by the throat. I hope that Alfonso Cuarón will become a supremely powerful voice in Hollywood, and that he stays away from the cocaine that has fried 90% of the directors and producers, who believe mindless remakes are “creativity.”

I succeeded yet again at my mental trick of filing away quibbles for later while enjoying the film. In this case it was easy. Lots to enjoy and the quibbles were bearable.

SPOILER POSSIBILITIES — I have not read Neil deGrasse Tyson’s tweets on this matter, but I’ll bet he mentioned:

* The Hubble Telescope orbits WAY higher than the Space Station. The past repair missions could barely reach it. The premise situation is scientifically broken… and I don’t care.

* Two stations would not stay orbiting close to each other, even if they started with identical parameters. The orbits would precess apart. No fix for this. Just grin & bear it.

* Had I been advising, I would have added a couple of lines about how Bullock would aim the rockets NOT at the station but away from it. “Up to drift back…” starts the nursery rhyme taught to all students of orbital dynamics. It would have looked and sounded cool to 99% and 1% would have nodded YESSSSSS!

* All right, the effects of debris were amplified maybe FOUR orders of magnitude. No possible combination of mere satellite parts could have done all that… and I couldn’t care less. It was sooooo cool.

I’ve got a dozen others but they all fall into the realm of acceptable. No kid learned something horribly dumb. It made techies and scientists and science look great. Those who say “but it made space look dangerous! are dolts. Of course it’s dangerous! That won’t deter the brave, it will attract them! Um, ever heard of 10,000 years of soldiers? This has the courage and honor of war, without the evil. It is exactly what we need.

Yeah, Gravity is one of the few movies that has major scientific issues, but is still quite enjoyable. Whether or not I recommend it to my friends depends on the friends – ie the Geeks I tell to stay away from it, the action junkies I tell to check it out, those who are both geeks and action junkies, I ask them to shut their brains off for two hours and give it a chance.

I know I may sound like I am ripping this movie apart, but I find it far easier to tell what I hate about something rather than explaining why I loved something. It’s a good movie, and quite enjoyable.

Pedram

+1 on recommending the Atmos mix. I really felt enveloped by the sound at times (e.g. in the helmet POV shots), and there was at least one moment with a smooth sweep around, and lots of specific placement of sounds/voices (beyond what 5.1 coud produce) that made me feel like I was right there with them.

I’ve heard a disappointing Atmos mix that didn’t seem to have much over 5.1 (Oblivion). This wasn’t one.

Pedram

Having said that, the first time I saw it (in the same Atmos equipped theatre) I was in the corner and couldn’t appreciate the Atmos nearly as much, but it was a total different experience when sitting in the middle – so seat placement is definitely a factor to enjoy the full effect of Atmos. From now on, if I can’t get a seat in the middle, I’m not going to bother with Atmos.

Really, Oblivion was in Atmos? I saw it in an Atmos equipped theater, certainly do not remember anything impressive about it.

Pacific Rim was the one that amazed me. Great use of Atmos.

Yeah, as I said, I could tell Gravity was in Atmos, but I felt that the use was pretty poor. I felt the number of effects that really seemed to make use of Atmos could be counted on one hand. When the effects were there, they were amazing. However, I just watched a Disney 7.1 home mix of The Lion King last night, and felt that it made better use of 7.1 than Gravity did of Atmos (21.2 in my theater). The only way I could describe this would be to compare it to a 3D movie – imagine that you wear glasses for the entire movie – but the majority of the movie is flat, yet there are about 4 or 5 shots where objects stick out of the screen into the audience (kinda like the Goosebumps movie that plays at Sea World). YES, at those times, you can tell that you are dealing with a much greater sound field than 5.1 or 7.1, but those are individual elements out of a 2 hour movie.

With Atmos – I don’t think the problem is that it needed more sound like that – I think the whole basis of the movie leads to the expectation that that most of it is going to be little or no sound. The movie is just not a good showcase piece for the technology.

EM

My comment here is a reaction to only this particular claim of William’s: “But, even if we are moving stuff closer for the sake of the story, the movie starts out by saying they are 600 miles up. The shuttle has a maximum altitude of 596.5 miles.”

I think it’s rather petulant to complain about the 3.5 mile difference from a round figure (If you disagree, you are opening yourself to some merciless fact-checking of descriptions such as “two-hour movie”.) But that specific complaint is also completely off base. The textual prelude describes conditions at an altitude of 600 kilometers, which is 372.82272 miles (I hope that’s not too approximate for you…). Of course, that fact correction doesn’t solve all the locational problems; I’m no expert on that stuff, yet I found it astoundingly convenient that everything was so close.

Frankly, I’m astounded that the nitpicking hasn’t extended to the more obvious spatiotemporal problems. I’m pretty sure that an active space shuttle and an active Tiangong station have never been contemporaneous—so, the amount of time spent traveling from the one to the other would have had to be significantly greater than purely spatial distances would suggest!

Ah, the text prelude was in Kilometers? Okay, I back down on that argument. I could have sworn it said Miles, but I did write the argument after seeing the movie. 600 kilometers is a realistic altitude.

Les

SPOILER ALERT!!!! You know, I seriously love sci-fi movies and thought Gravity was kinda lame. I am not really that picky!! The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, Aliens, Star Wars, 2001, Star Trek, etc., I love them all. Gravity had (1) serious blooper that was unforgivable, if you ask me. When George Clooney is hanging on to that strap in space with Sandra Bullock at the other end, about anyone with little to no knowledge of space, weightlessness, etc. should know that all she had to do was give the slightest of tugs on that strap and George Clooney would have drifted to her. Instead, Clooney acts like he is hanging over a cliff and disconnects from the strap and goes drifting off into space to his death. I mean kill George Clooney off some other way!!! You have thousands of pieces of debris flying around in space at 10’s of thousands miles per hour and this was the most scientifically inaccurate way you decide to bump him off??? I remember my wife and I looking at each other at the same time in the movie theater when this occurred, frowning, with a “huh” on our faces. An Oscar contender??? Come on!!!

Also, had somewhat of an issue with George Clooney jetting around in space like he is Buzz Lightyear. Of course, I had just watched the IMAX Hubble movie the night before and watched those real astronauts moving around in meticulous, careful, deliberation. I can forgive any other scientific inaccuracies in the movie but that one scene noted above . . .

And yes, for some reason, I will probably buy this on Blu-ray and watch it again just to see if I didn’t give it a fair chance. I really want to like this movie but . . .

Agree. I tend to watch all films in my home theater, but I actually left the house to see this one after hearing all the raving reviews. Big let down. Here’s my review. It’s Sandra Bullock performing her off-Broadway one-woman-show adaptation of the movie Speed. And by off-Broadway, I mean in space. I didn’t care about the character(s), and my disbelief was not suspended. Visuals hardly matter at that point. And the 3D just seemed gimmicky. I really wanted to love this, but at best it was just “fine.”

Les

Wow, Gravity wins the box office again in week 3 of its release. Incredible . . . It would appear that this movie will end up making somewhere between $300 and $400 million worldwide. I even liked Carrie and Escape Plan better, this past weekend, than Gravity. Captain Phillips is a great movie!!

Once again, I will purchase this on Blu-ray just to give it another view and then hopefully it doesn’t end on my shelf with Solaris, never to be watched again.

Subscribe to The Bonus View RSS

Get all latest Bonus View content delivered to your email daily!

Welcome to The Bonus View presented by High-Def Digest!

This blog serves as a catch-all for topics, beyond Blu-ray, that interest us as home theater junkies including movies in theaters, high-definition gear, television shows, video games and 3D programming.